https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174836 After the 1988 amendment to Rule 16(2A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, a notice of voluntary retirement had to be accepted by the Central Government, and acceptance became effective only when made by the competent authority and communicated to the employee. A notification issued by the State Government was therefore not a valid acceptance in law because it lacked jurisdiction. Although the retirement acceptance was held invalid, the Court declined reinstatement and, exercising Article 142, granted limited consequential relief instead, including pensionary benefits with interest, salary for the relevant period, and costs. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174836 After the 1988 amendment to Rule 16(2A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, a notice of voluntary retirement had to be accepted by the Central Government, and acceptance became effective only when made by the competent authority and communicated to the employee. A notification issued by the State Government was therefore not a valid acceptance in law because it lacked jurisdiction. Although the retirement acceptance was held invalid, the Court declined reinstatement and, exercising Article 142, granted limited consequential relief instead, including pensionary benefits with interest, salary for the relevant period, and costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174836